Including Gays Under Irvine Rights Law

I am not gay. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to point out that the argument posited by the Irvine Values Coalition in opposition to the anti-discrimination ordinance recently passed in a 4-0 vote by the Irvine City Council contains serious flaws (Sept. 6).

Scott Peotter, the leader of the group, claims that the ordinance represents a “change in the moral direction of the community,” which, of course, implies a change in the wrong direction.

Well, if the protection of individual rights for virtually all citizens is, according to the group, a change in the wrong direction, one naturally wonders what values the Irvine Values Coalition would prefer.

Peotter claims that under the ordinance homosexuals will receive “special rights.” Yet the language of the ordinance merely bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (which properly read includes everyone) as well as on the basis of ethnicity, color, religion, national origin, marital status or a physical handicap. Is that “special”?

As Mayor Larry Agran points out, the ordinance merely provides equal protection under the law to groups that have been traditionally discriminated against.

What rights could this ordinance possibly take away? I can think of only one: The “right” to discriminate.

The most fundamental issue here is the degree of our commitment to the rights of individuals against what (Alexis de) Tocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority.”

CHRISTOPHER ANDRE

Tustin